low inhibition said:
photons from CBMR are in the low freq radio spectrum, that's like saying we can make out the shape of a room and furniture in it using a radio goggle. I don't fully understand decoherence, but I'm pretty sure the mainstream view of why dust particles aren't teleporting around and have a definite position is due to decoherence, and not CBMR photons.
You are wrong and links to the professional literature explaining it has been given. Of course the CBMR is not the only thing affecting dust particles - but all by itself is enough to give it a definite position.
low inhibition said:
I'm not placing my weird views anywhere, how do u explain the youtube video i posted? The disappearance of interference occurred BEFORE the information of which slit it passed was obtained. This even suggest time travel might be possible lol.
Again its been explained in this thread. Its due to decoherence in simple cases can be undone.
I have given this link before, but will do it again:
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/index.html
It has a whole chapter devoted to the erasure experiment and variants:
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/chaps/cqt20.pdf
Here is the conclusion:
The analysis of the delayed choice paradox given above provides some useful lessons on how to
analyze quantum paradoxes of this general sort. Perhaps the first and most important lesson is
that a paradox must be turned into an explicit quantum mechanical model, complete with a set of
unitary time transformations. The model should be kept as simple as possible: there is no point in
using long expressions and extensive calculations when the essential elements of the paradox and the
ideas for untangling it can be represented in a simple way. Indeed, the simpler the representation,
the easier it will be to spot the problematic reasoning underlying the paradox. In the interests of
simplicity we used single states, rather than macroscopic projectors or density matrices, for the
measuring apparatus, and for discussing the outcomes of a quantum coin toss. A more sophisticated
approach is available, see Sec. 17.4, but it leads to the same conclusions.
A second lesson is that in order to discuss a paradox, it is necessary to introduce an appropriate
framework, which will be a consistent family if the paradox involves time development. There will,
typically, be more than one possible framework, and it is a good idea to look at several, since
different frameworks allow one to investigate different aspects of a situation.
A third lesson has to do with MQS states. These are usually not taken into account when stating
a paradox, and this is not surprising: most physicists do not have any intuitive idea as to what
they mean. Nevertheless, families containing MQS states may be very useful for understanding
where the reasoning underlying a paradox has gone astray. For example, a process of implicitly
(and thus unconsciously) choosing families which contain no MQS states, and then inferring from
this that the future influences the past, or that there are mysterious nonlocal influences, lies behind
a number of paradoxes. This becomes evident when one works out various alternative families of
histories and sees what is needed in order to satisfy the consistency conditions.
But you need to take the time to go through the whole book. It uses math, but its explained as you go along.
A question requiring an advanced answer for the full detail has been asked as a beginner - specifically you need knowledge of the difference between pure and mixed states plus decoherence. You simply have to accept some things at that level - it can't be explained in detail at the beginner level.
Thanks
Bill
